beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.26 2017가단259840

출입구철거 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the sectional owner of the first floor F of the building indicated in the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”). The Defendant is the sectional owner of F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “instant underground section”) among the above buildings.

However, the former owner of the underground section of the instant aggregate building illegally damages common areas among the instant aggregate building without obtaining permission from the relevant authorities, and installed the entrances and structures directly connecting the instant underground section and the site for common areas on the first floor of the instant aggregate building (hereinafter “instant entrances and structures”). The Defendant, who acquired the ownership of the instant underground section from J, uses the said entrances and structures installed illegally until the date of closing argument.

Therefore, one of the sectional owners of the instant condominiums seeks the removal of the entrance and structure as a preservation act for common areas.

2. Determination

A. Article 16 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that "the matters concerning the management of common areas shall be decided by a resolution at an ordinary assembly," and the proviso provides that "the preservation activities may be carried out by each co-owner." The purport of the above provision is that the preservation activities for the maintenance of the phenomenon of common areas of an aggregate building can be carried out by the sectional owner, who is the co-owner, separately from the management activities. The contents of the preservation activities include not only the actual preservation activities such as ordinary co-ownership but also the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on the right of ownership and the right to claim the return of the jointly-owned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da61746, May 11, 199; 94Da9269, Feb. 28, 1995).